• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

3L VS. 2.5L supercharged?

9

98csvt69

CEG'er
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
205
Location
Gonvick, MN
Just curious about what is really more,,, lets say reliable. Or which one has more horsepower for your money? A stock 3L or supercharged 2.5L? Im in the slow search for my 2nd svt. I really want a turbo/supercharged 3L but dont think i will have the funds for one of those cuz i gotta buy a truck too lol. So im basicly just Wondering what is better. A 3L or force induction'd 2.5L...what do you think?
 
98csvt69 said:
Just curious about what is really more,,, lets say reliable. Or which one has more horsepower for your money? A stock 3L or supercharged 2.5L? Im in the slow search for my 2nd svt. I really want a turbo/supercharged 3L but dont think i will have the funds for one of those cuz i gotta buy a truck too lol. So im basicly just Wondering what is better. A 3L or force induction'd 2.5L...what do you think?
Click to expand...

3L, why..because you won't have to worry about the 6 cly starvation and heads draining problem.
 
depends on what u want really. if u want the "throw back in your seat" effect, then FI'd is the way to go. for the perfect combination of reliability and decent speed, i'd do a 3L... especially if it's gonna be a daily driver. if u can do it urself, the 3l swap is the way to go. Simply put, a fi'd 2.5 is faster than a 3L swap.
 
No question the 3L would be more reliable considering the failure rate of supercharging the 2.5. As for hp/money you'd need to look at adding on something versus getting a whole new low mileage engine that can run 87 octane.
 
For sure get the 3.0L.

Comparing hp to hp, obviously the S/C 2.5L will make quite a bit more peak power than the 3.0L (about 250 whp on a relatively stock 2.5L). However, the S/C 2.5L only makes about 10 more ft lbs of tq than a 3.0L. Sad...I know. If you could make 350-400 whp on a Vortech I would probably go with that over the turbo, just because you could probably still keep the wheels planted because the power is linear. A turbocharged car is so much more fun though.
 
Reebs said:
Well then, I sure hope you have it tuned for 87!
Click to expand...


Yeah i was wondering where he is going with this.

A 3L is best, IMHO, 500 for the motor and a few extra items 150. so 650 for everything.

Then if you can't put it it, you can always pay someone on ceg, and then sel some of the 2.5L parts. Making the swap worth it in the long run. Even while running 93 ocatne the 3L's get better MGP than the 2.5L
 
Harrry said:
Yeah i was wondering where he is going with this.

A 3L is best, IMHO, 500 for the motor and a few extra items 150. so 650 for everything.

Then if you can't put it it, you can always pay someone on ceg, and then sel some of the 2.5L parts. Making the swap worth it in the long run. Even while running 93 ocatne the 3L's get better MGP than the 2.5L
Click to expand...

With or without the Euro-spec BAT MTX-75?
How's the torque curve on those 3L with the SVT head swap? Could be something interesting in the long run for mine...
 
Dyoel182 said:
Not going anywhere in particular, just saying its much easier to run 87 with the drop in compression from 10:1 and still show much better numbers.
Click to expand...

wtf? how. with a regular 2.5 contour with svt heads?? why 87, you would be close or even causing detonation/pinging, because you would need the 93 ocatane due to the compression increase.

Even with the 3L installed you would use the svt PCM, which is tuned for 93 octane:shrug:

I have no idea what exact engine you are speaking about. Regardless the only engine capable of running a 3L with 87 untuned would be a regular contour with a 3L. Even then they need a tune because the 3L runs like crap. Which several have done in the past and had to upgrade to a svt pcm.


So again, where are you going with this?
 
its not just the compression ratio its the pcm tuning that makes it 93. if you look lots and lots of new cars have 10:1 on 87.

and the 3L being 10:1 on 87 kinda says it. you could "de-tune" your pcm to work with 87 but i think its just stupid.

but please to hold me to what i just said because thats what info i have gathered.
 
Harrry said:
I have no idea what exact engine you are speaking about. Regardless the only engine capable of running a 3L with 87 untuned would be a regular contour with a 3L. Even then they need a tune because the 3L runs like crap. Which several have done in the past and had to upgrade to a svt pcm.
Click to expand...


Sorry if I'm misinformed but I'm just going off the 3LDuratec website info. I know there are several ways to do the 3L swap depending on the parts you have and the parts you need so thats obviously where the difference comes into play.

Redlineracer12 said:
Actually the 3.0s come with 10:1 compression also.... In case you were thinking they were lower.
Click to expand...

When you use the SVT heads on them? Otherwise the 2001 SEL 3.0 people have talked about is listed at 9.4 unless thats wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dyoel182 said:
When you use the SVT heads on them? Otherwise the 2001 SEL 3.0 people have talked about is listed at 9.4 unless thats wrong.
Click to expand...



When you use SVT heads on a 3L block, your looking at around 11.25:1 CR. Using the 3L block and heads yeilds you a 10:1 CR.
 
Dyoel182 said:
Well that would mean the 9.4:1 ratio is just bad info and really is 10:1 like the later years.
Click to expand...

For a new guy your throwing your weight out alot it seems. Try spending more time on here learning instead of arguing :shrug:
 
I'm not trying to argue with anyone or throw my weight around, I'm simply trying to learn more. When someone mentioned the 01 motor I checked the specs and saw it was 9.4:1 compression which I now believe is incorrect since the 02 engine has the same power rating but lists 10:1 compression. All of my other information is straight off the 3LDuratec site so I'm sorry if I misunderstood it or if its not exactly right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top